It is currently Sun Jun 24, 2018 2:29 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
 Timeline of the attempt to make a deal 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Timeline of the attempt to make a deal
Let's get the facts down, in a timeline. I'll edit this post as data is added by others. Please supply links to original sources where possible.

____________________________________________________________

July 2006: General Chapter meeting of SSPX decides that there can be no practical agreement without a prior doctrinal correction of "rome's" errors.

Quote:
[T]he contacts made from time to time with the authorities in Rome have no other purpose than to help them embrace once again that Tradition which the Church cannot repudiate without losing her identity. The purpose is not just to benefit the Society, nor to arrive at some merely practical impossible agreement. When Tradition comes back into its own, "reconciliation will no longer be a problem, and the Church will spring back to life".

On this long road to re-conquest, the Chapter encourages all members of the Society to live, as its statutes require, ever more intensely by the grace proper to it, namely, in union with the great prayer of the High Priest, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.


Source: http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_n ... hapter.htm

____________________________________________________________

2009-2011: A doctrinal debate is held over several sessions, between four theologians led by Bishop de Galarreta for the SSPX, and the Modernists from Rome.

These discussions ended with agreement that the Modernists and the Fraternity did not agree on doctrine.

____________________________________________________________


September 14 2011: A Doctrinal Preamble is handed to Bishop Fellay, Fr. Pfluger, and Fr. Nely at the CDF.

The SSPX and "rome" issue a joint press release.

From a DICI interview with Bishop Fellay:
Quote:
The joint press release by the Vatican and the Society announced that a doctrinal document was delivered to you and that a canonical solution was proposed to you. Can you give us any particulars?

This document is entitled “Doctrinal Preamble”; it was handed over to us for in-depth study. Hence it is confidential, and you will understand why I say no more about it to you. However the term “preamble” does indicate that acceptance of it is a preliminary condition for any canonical recognition of the Society of St. Pius X on the part of the Holy See.


Source: http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-w ... am-levada/

The joint press release:
Quote:
Holy See Press Release (September 14, 2011)

14-09-2011
Filed under From Rome, From Tradition, News

Vatican

On September 14, 2011, at the headquarters of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, His Eminence the Most Reverend Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of that Congregation and President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, His Excellency Archbishop Luis Ladaria, S.J., Secretary of that Congregation, and Monsignor Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, met with His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, and Fathers Niklaus Pfluger and Alain-Marc Nély, General Assistants of the Society.

After a petition was sent on December 15, 2008, by the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, the Holy Father decided to lift the excommunication of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and at the same time to begin doctrinal discussions with the Society, so as to overcome the difficulties and problems of a doctrinal nature and to remedy the existing break.* [*The medical expression used in the original French text means “to set a fracture”.]

Obeying the Holy Father’s will, a joint study commission made up of experts of the Society of Saint Pius X and experts of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith assembled eight times for meetings that took place in Rome between October 2009 and April 2011. The objective of these talks was to set forth and examine in depth the major doctrinal difficulties on the disputed topics; they achieved their purpose, which was to clarify the respective positions and their motivations.

Having considered the concerns and requests presented by the Society of Saint Pius X in connection with respect for the integrity of the Catholic faith as opposed to the hermeneutic of rupture that interprets the Second Vatican Council as a break with Tradition—a hermeneutic mentioned by Pope Benedict XVI in his Address to the Roman Curia on December 22, 2005—the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith takes as the fundamental basis for full reconciliation with the Apostolic See the acceptance of the Doctrinal Preamble that was delivered during the meeting on September 14, 2011. This preamble enunciates some of the doctrinal principles and criteria for interpreting Catholic doctrine that are necessary in order to guarantee fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church and to sentire cum Ecclesia [thinking with the Church], while leaving open for legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of particular expressions or formulations found in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and of the subsequent Magisterium.

During the same meeting several elements were proposed with a view to a canonical solution for the Society of Saint Pius X, which would follow the eventual and hoped-for reconciliation.


Source: http://www.dici.org/en/news/holy-see-pr ... r-14-2011/
____________________________________________________________


September 14, 2011: DICI publishes an interview with Bishop Fellay explaining the above joint press release:

http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-w ... am-levada/

____________________________________________________________

October 2011, Bishop de Galarreta presents his analysis of the Preamble to the gathered SSPX Superiors in Albano.

The text, released later, is here: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1211

It includes the following prophecy:
Quote:
The mere fact of going down this path will lead us to doubt, dispute, distrust, parties, and especially division. Many superiors and priests have a legitimate problem of conscience and will oppose it. Authority and the very principle of authority will be questioned, undermined.

We cannot join the caravan in our contacts with Rome, we must keep the commands, mark the time and conditions. So we need a line defined in advance, clear and firm, independent of stress and possible Roman maneuvers.

Accordingly, it is not the moment to change the decision of the Chapter of 2006 (no practical agreement without resolving the doctrinal issue) and it is not right or prudent to embark on preparing minds otherwise, before there is in us the conviction, consensus and the decision to change, otherwise it will only cause division and, by reaction, squabbling, anarchy.

____________________________________________________________

October 7, 2011: Press release from Menzingen regarding the Albano meeting of SSPX Superiors, which discussed the Preamble.

Quote:
Press Release from the General House of the Priestly Society of St Pius X

7-10-2011
Filed under From Tradition, News

albano_01On October 7, 2011, a meeting of all those in charge of the Society of St Pius X was held in Albano, Italy, during which the Superior General, H. E. Bishop Bernard Fellay, presented the content of the Doctrinal Preamble, handed over to him by Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, at the Vatican, during last September 14 meeting.

During this day, the twenty-eight persons in charge of the Society of St Pius X present at the meeting – seminary rectors, district superiors from all over the world – manifested a profound unity in their will to maintain the Faith in its integrity and its fullness, faithful to the lesson which Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre left them, according to St Paul’s “Tradidi quod et accepi – I have handed over what I myself have received” (I Cor 15:3).

Following this work meeting, the study of the Doctrinal Preamble – of which the content still remains confidential – will be pursued and further analysed at the level of the General Counsel of the Society of St Pius X, by the Superior General and his two Assistants, Frs. Niklaus Pfluger and Alain Nely, enabling them to present an answer to the Roman proposals in a reasonable time.


Source: http://www.dici.org/en/news/press-relea ... st-pius-x/
____________________________________________________________

November 2011: Fr. Paul Morgan reveals in his Newsletter that "the stated consensus of those in attendance [at the Albano meeting] was that the Doctrinal Preamble was clearly unacceptable and that the time has certainly not come to pursue any practical agreement as long as the doctrinal issues remain outstanding. It also agreed that the Society should continue its work of insisting upon the doctrinal questions in any contacts with the Roman authorities."

Source: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1017
____________________________________________________________

January, 2012: Bishop Fellay sends a text to Rome concerning the Doctrinal Preamble.

____________________________________________________________

March 16, 2012: Bishop Fellay and Fr. Nely are received at the CDF and are informed that "the position he expressed is not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems which lie at the foundation of the rift between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X.
“At the end of today’s meeting, moved by concern to avoid an ecclesial rupture of painful and incalculable consequences, the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X was invited to clarify his position in order to be able to heal the existing rift, as is the desire of Pope Benedict XVI."

Source: http://www.dici.org/en/news/communique- ... h-16-2012/

Bishop Fellay is therefore asked for further clarifications of the Fraternity's position on the Doctrinal Preamble.
____________________________________________________________

March 22, 2012: Fr. Schmidberger has a text read in all SSPX chapels across the German District.

Quote:
Cancel Preaching: Conversations with Rome

Sunday, 25 March 2012

Cancel preaching to all churches and chapels of the German District of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X.

Dear faithful,

On 16 March in Rome Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation, gave the Superior General of our Fraternity, Bishop Fellay a letter with statements in which we are asked ultimately to react more positively to the doctrinal preamble of September the 14th then we had done so far.

As a final deadline for a response is given the 15th of April 2012. Surely you have heard this already wholly or partialy from the media. We are have thus arrived at a crucial point.

Even if the letter strikes an unpleasant sound, there are legitimate hopes for a satisfactory solution. If this solution would be reached it would considerably strengthen all the orthodox forces in the church. If not it would weaken and discourage these forces. So it is not primarily about our Fraternity, but for the good of the Church.

Therefore we ask for the eager, insistent and imploring prayer of all our faithful and all Catholics, that God through the redemptive suffering of His only begotten Son, will lead His Church through this crisis and give her in the Holy Resurrection of Jesus life new strength and new prosperity.

Stuttgart, 22 March 2012
Father Franz Schmidberger, District Superior


Source: http://pius.info/startseite/offizielle- ... he-mit-rom
____________________________________________________________

April 7, 2012: The three other bishops of the SSPX send a joint letter to Bishop Fellay warning him not to pursue a purely practical agreement with "rome".

Source: viewtopic.php?p=11756#p11756
____________________________________________________________

April 14, 2012: Bishop Fellay, and Frs. Nely and Pfluger send a reply to the letter of the three bishops.

Source: viewtopic.php?p=11759#p11759
____________________________________________________________

April 17, 2012: Some kind of text is delivered to Rome. It is unknown what it actually was. Fr. Pfluger seemed to say that it was a "Doctrinal Declaration" whereas DICI asserts that it was merely some clarifications on the Doctrinal Preamble.

Fr. Pfluger, in a conference given in France (l'école Saint-Joseph des Carmes) June 5, 2012, revealed part of the April 17 text which Bishop Fellay gave to "rome." Here is what Fr Pfluger said:

Quote:
We promise to always be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff. We declare that we accept the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church in matters of faith and morals.

The entire tradition of catholic faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the second Vatican council, which, in turn, enlightens certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself and not yet formulated.

The affirmations of the second Vatican council […] and of the posterior pontifical Magisterium concerning relations between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian confessions […] must be understood in the light of the entire and uninterrupted Tradition in a manner which is coherent with truths previously taught by the Church and without accepting any interpretation whatsoever.

That is why it is legitimate to promote through a legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of expressions or formulae of the second Vatican council and the ensuing Magisterium whenever these do not appear reconcilable with the Church’s previous Magisterium.


DICI on the other hand, characterised the text as follows:

Quote:
On April 17, the Vatican-watcher Andrea Tornielli over-hastily declared that Bishop Fellay sent a “positive response” to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, whereas it was actually a set of clarifications that the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X was adding to his response to the Doctrinal Preamble, at the request of Cardinal Levada on March 16 of this year.


Source: http://www.dici.org/en/news/romesociety ... ss-review/

Later, Menzingen in a press release referred to the April text as a "Doctrinal Declaration".

Source: http://www.dici.org/en/news/communique- ... e-14-2012/
____________________________________________________________

May 1, 2012: Bishop Fellay gives an interview to the Conciliar Catholic News Service (CNS) in which he makes several controversial comments, including the following:

“There are some discrepancies in the Society,” Bishop Fellay told CNS. “I cannot exclude that there might be a split.”

Other hair-raising comments were made by Bishop Fellay in this same interview, including the suggestion that the Fraternity has erroneously assigned some of the evils of the Conciliar church to Vatican II.

Source: viewtopic.php?p=11861#p11861
____________________________________________________________

May 4, 2012: Bp Fellay gives a conference to the Dominican teaching sisters of Saint-Pré and some of the faithful.

Quote:
Concerning the reply I sent to Rome just after Quasimodo, 17th April, I still don't know what the CDF thinks of it. I quite simply don't know. From what I gather from private sources, I have the impression it is acceptable. Amongst ourselves, I think it will have to explained properly because there are (in this document) expressions or declarations which are so very much on a tightrope that if you are ill disposed or whether you are wearing black or pink tinted glasses, you will see it as this or as that. So we shall have to properly explain that this letter changes absolutely nothing of our position. But, if one wants to read it sideways, one will succeed in understanding it sideways.

...

But now we are being told that we can discuss ... What does it mean to discuss? Can we still protest? Is it still permitted to protest publicly? The legitimate discussion, is public. So, is it necessary to agree on the word discuss? These are important questions ... I think there is a danger that remains. Certainly care must be taken. We must have guarantees. This is what I always said. Before entering, we must have real assurance - as the Archbishop always said - the assurance that we can continue as is. Simply.

...

A new situation

Obviously, we are forced to think about it, because it's such a change of parameters that we are not accustomed to this. And of course there is the question: "Is it time? Is not too dangerous to go get it? "I do not have all the answers. They say: "Bishop Fellay has signed, Bishop did this, Bishop has done this. "No. I do not have all the answers yet. I see lines in certain directions. For me, the only thing that matters is doing the will of God. That's it! I can guess a line. I am waiting that it is sufficiently clear. I think it will come. For now, I'm here. I know - maybe you also know - I know that this issue causes trouble, if only because of the question, "but then what? ". So we ask all sorts of questions.

This is a situation so new that it's a little scary. It is quite normal to have a little fear in such a situation. We must have guarantees, that's it! Let's see if they will or not, because if it's going to be suicide, no! We have to have the reasonable prospect that our canonical status can hold water.

...

And for me, it is clear that what happens today does not offer three outcomes, there are only two: either we are recognized, or it's war. This is the declaration of schism, then with acceleration on both sides. This eliminates the quite comfortable situation where we are now. But again, it is not we who are the cause of this precipitation. Sometimes they tell me, "Why hurry?" But I'm in no hurry! I myself am in no hurry!


Source: http://sisciresdonumdei.blogspot.fr/201 ... rnite.html
____________________________________________________________

May 9, 2012: The letter of the three other SSPX bishops to Bishop Fellay is released publicly, and the reply of Bishop Fellay, and Frs. Nely and Pfluger is also released.
____________________________________________________________

May 11, 2012: Menzingen condemns the release of the letters.

Source: http://www.dici.org/en/news/communique- ... y-11-2012/
____________________________________________________________

May 16, 2012: "Rome" issues a press release confirming that the three bishops will be "dealt with separately and singularly."

Quote:
Vatican City, 16 May 2012 (VIS) - Early this afternoon, the Holy See Press Office issued the following communique regarding the Society of St. Pius X:

As reported by news agencies, today, 16 May 2012, an Ordinary Session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith met to discuss the question of the Society of St. Pius X.

In particular, the text of the response of Bishop Bernard Fellay, received on 17 April, 2012, was examined and some observations, which will be considered in further discussions between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X, were formulated.

Regarding the positions taken by the other three bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, their situations will have to be dealt with separately and singularly.


Source: http://www.vis.va/vissolr/index.php?vi= ... &ul=1&ev=1

____________________________________________________________

June 13, 2012: Bishop Fellay and Fr. Pfluger are presented with a further modified Preamble text which is still secret, but which Bishop Fellay cannot sign.

Bishop Fellay and Fr. Pfluger are also presented with "a draft document proposing a Personal Prelature, in the case of a possible canonical recognition of the Society of Saint Pius X."

Source: http://www.dici.org/en/news/communique- ... e-14-2012/

____________________________________________________________

25 June, 2012: Fr. Thouvenot, General Secretary of the SSPX, sends out a circular to the various superiors of the SSPX, in which he reveals that the June 13 Preamble text was a return in substance to the original Preamble of September 2011, and that therefore Bishop Fellay could not accept it.

Quote:
Menzingen, 25 June, 2012

Excellencies, and Superiors,

As you know, our Superior General responded to the letter of the 16th March from Cardinal Levada who tried to impose the doctrinal Preamble of the 14th September 2011. By this document, dated 15th April, he wished to break free from the impasse created by this Preamble. According to several concurring sources, the new text seemed to satisfy the Sovereign Pontiff.

On the 13th June, 2012, Cardinal Levada returned to our Superior General his text of April, but it was amended in such a way that it still took up, in substance, the propositions of September, 2011. Msgr. Fellay also made known to him that he could not sign this new document, which was clearly unacceptable. The coming General Chapter will permit the analysis of the entire dossier.

Moreover, I inform all the members of the Chapter, that in virtue of Canon 2331, Paragraph 1 and 2 (New Code 1373) the Superior General has deprived Msgr. Williamson of his office as member of the Chapter for taking a position calling for a rebellion, and for his continually repeated disobedience. He has equally forbidden him to come to Econe for the ordinations.

Finally, Msgr. Fellay has deferred the ordinations of the Dominicans of Avrille and the Capuchins of Morgon, who were foreseen to have been ordained at Econe this coming 29th June. The putting off of orders was dictated simply by the wish of Bishop Fellay to be assured of the loyalty of these communities, before laying hands upon their candidates (cf. I Timothy 5:22).

Be assured Excellencies and Superiors of my respectful and faithful priestly wishes.

Fr. Christian Thouvenot.


Source: Scan of French original - http://strobertbellarmine.net/Letter_to ... s_2012.pdf
____________________________________________________________

June 29, 2012: Bishop Fellay, in his sermon on the occasion of the ordinations at Econe, effectively declares that the deal is dead.

Quote:
And when we celebrate this Feast of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, we cannot not think of Rome. And we cannot forget this love that our founder had for Rome, and that he wished and that he wanted to inculcate in his children. We are Roman! And this we cannot put behind us! Even if we live in difficult times, even if we have to suffer from the Rome of today, this cannot at all weaken this true, effective and affectionate love for Rome, because it was the good God the one who chose this City to be the head of the Church. This does not mean that we will love the errors, certainly not, we suffer them. But one cannot let oneself, we can say, be put off by what is happening, at the point of giving up. No, it is necessary to maintain, which is what we try to do.

Certainly, you ask of me, 'What is happening with Rome?" If up to now we have said almost nothing, it is because we do not have much to tell you. Up to now, things are at a stage, we can say, of a full stop. In the sense that there have been tos and fros, there have been exchanges, effectively, dealings, proposals, but we are at the point of departure. The point of departure in which we had said not being able to accept, not being able to sign. We are there, that is all. We see, on one hand, this situation getting complicated, it has been two, three years I have said before, in Rome, before the contradiction. Since 2009, I have said it, and I repeat it, and well that takes place every day. It is the state of the Church, what do you want? There are those who try, who wish to move further, we can say, on Progressivism and on the consequences of Progressivism. There are others who wish corrections to take place. And we, in the middle, we have become as a ping-pong ball, that everyone hits. We know that in the end, in the end, the Church will find herself again, and to us belongs this yearning of not being satisfied with a certain, let us say, comfort. With a situation that is simply not normal. We cannot become in the end used, because we are in a situation in which we do whatever we want, to consider the state in which we find ourselves as normal. This isn't true. Simply not true. It is normal that we seek, with respect for all conditions that are necessary, evidently, to recover this title, that is ours, to which we have a right, of Catholics. This doesn't mean that we must place ourselves simply in the hands of the Modernists, this has nothing to do with it.

But it is a difficult situation, difficult, everything seems electric, we see clearly that the devil runs unchained on all sides. And therefore, this is the time for prayer. It is a difficult moment. For us, about us, all sorts of things are said. Dear God, the only thing we wish for is to make God's will, that is all. The will of God is expressed in facts. ... It is also clear that we cannot bring good to all the Church than by remaining faithful to this heritage of the Archbishop. From which come these famous, I don't know, "conditions", "assurances", that we have presented several times, that must ensure that the Society will remain what it is. If, at a certain time, a collaboration is conceivable, when, how, well the circumstances will show it.

____________________________________________________________



____________________________________________________________

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 09, 2012 3:37 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 12:07 am
Posts: 48
New post Re: Timeline of attempt to make a deal
Excellent work John.

You might include events surrounding BW. His interview, expulsion from Argentina, the silencing by Fellay, his weekly letters, him banned from the meeting etc., also the interventions by Jewish groups with Rome.

Also the expulsions of SSPX clergy.


Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:32 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Timeline of attempt to make a deal
Gandolfo,

Thanks, but I can't be bothered with any of that.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:35 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 am
Posts: 63
Location: St. Marys, Kansas
New post Re: Timeline of the attempt to make a deal
Thanks John!
This is really a great service you've done here and on I.A. For assembling and posting this.
It will be a great and useful reference in the work of the Catholic resistance.
God Bless,
Mike

_________________
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.


Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:15 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Timeline of the attempt to make a deal
John,

What did you make of John Lamont's timeline? Was it accurate do you think?

James


Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:32 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Timeline of the attempt to make a deal
James Francis wrote:
John,

What did you make of John Lamont's timeline? Was it accurate do you think?

James


Dear James,

I confess that I had not read it, I'm sorry. I put it aside with the mental note to get back to it later, and forgot all about it!

It is very, very good. Comments on the thread where you posted it.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:47 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Timeline of the attempt to make a deal
A summary of what has happened, as far as I can determine.

Bishop Fellay believes that Benedict is truly and undoubtedly pope. What I mean is that he believes this really, unlike the general trad view of the matter, which actually involves some level of doubt.

Therefore he sweats over being in an irregular canonical situation, not being truly obedient to the Roman Pontiff.

He really believes that Rome has changed somewhat, for the good, and thinks that he does not have the right to reject the overture that arrived out of the blue last September. Rather, he thinks that there is no harm, and potentially much good, in following the indications of Providence and see where they lead. His idea is that the General Chapter will have final responsibility for whatever canonical details are put in place, and so he doesn't feel that the path is suicidal, even if fraught with difficulty and some danger. The situation moves faster than he expected, and he doesn't know what's coming next, but he reacts as he thinks best in the circumstances.

He decides to accept an agreement in principle, with a vague and ambiguous doctrinal declaration as the foundation, but subject to acceptable canonical arrangements and guarantees. The latter will be taken to the GC in July for discussion and correction as necessary. He honestly maintains that he won't lead the Fraternity to suicide, but he finds that his own senior men don't believe him.

They judge that he has lost his common sense and is travelling a disastrous path, and they tell him so, and so he feels caught between the Vicar of Christ on one side, and his own men on the other. He feels crushed between his responsibility to Christ through His Vicar, and his responsibility for the Fraternity which has been the only real obstacle to complete apostasy in our time.

In the midst of this he finds that all confidentiality has been lost, outside of his General Council, so he clams up with internal communication. This adds to the general unease and feeds distrust.

Rome tells him his doctrinal text is acceptable to Benedict, so he thinks an agreement in principle is now inevitable. He begins to prepare people for this, by giving that horrible CNS interview, which is then edited in a way to make the most of every ambiguous and compromising aspect of what he said.

The PR disaster grows worse.

Within days the letter of the three bishops is released, and Rome reacts very negatively. Bishop Fellay knows from Rome's reaction that the deal is off. The June 13 text, signed personally by Benedict, seals the matter.

It's worth reading the timeline to remind oneself of how events unfolded, which helps to put them in context. The three bishops, or more accurately, whoever leaked that letter, killed the deal.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:45 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Timeline of the attempt to make a deal
John Lane wrote:
It's worth reading the timeline to remind oneself of how events unfolded, which helps to put them in context. The three bishops, or more accurately, whoever leaked that letter, killed the deal.


If this is a truly accurate account of the events, it seems to me that it was not the leaking of the letter of the three bishops that killed the deal but rather Bishop Fellay's refusal to be completely open and forthright to the other bishops and the senior members of the Society that killed the deal. It does not seem that, had Bishop Fellay personally discussed these issues with the bishops and kept them in his confidence, the letter of the three bishops would probably not have been written and, thus, would not have been leaked. Even if the letter had been written, it, perhaps, would have been sponsored by only one bishop and would not have carried the weight that it did.


Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:48 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.